CAUSLEY and ANOR v COUNTRYSIDE (NO 3) PTY LTD and ORS [1994] NSWCA 45

The discretion to refuse an extension of time should not be exercised adversely where the delay is explained, the appeal is fairly arguable, and there is no significant prejudice.

Parties: Applicant: Causley; Respondent: Countryside (No 3) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 12 December 1994
Procedural Posture: Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome: Order withheld
Legal Topics: Extension of Time, Appeals, Unit Trust Liability, Breach of Contract, Stay of Proceedings

Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Unit Trust Liability Breach of Contract Stay of Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Causley

Applicant

Countryside (No 3) Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal should be granted
2 Liability of unit holders in a unit trust for breach of contract damages

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion to refuse an extension of time should not be exercised adversely where the delay is explained, the appeal is fairly arguable, and there is no significant prejudice.

Court Disposition

Order withheld